feminists tend to have higher IQs than the alt-right people.
feminists tend to have higher IQs than the alt-right people.
Blah. None of us really know anything.
It's possibly to think and such to find the correct answer.Originally Posted by inumbra
As politics [with not only its public side] is done by adequate and smart people, the reasons of their actions are seen in the results. Especially when they are easily predictable and can be explained by objective material needs like in the case of "feminism".
It's naive and wrong to think that social changes, ideology and propaganda is not under rational control of those who has the power and money.
the specifically debated matter was regarding feminism being used as population control. In a way feminism is, as we know that birth rates go down the more reproductive rights women have. Women generally don't like being constant baby machines with no control over their own lives or destinies. But it's another matter to say that feminism from the very beginning was a scheme in population control. In that case, why not employ it in regions in which the population really is spiraling out of control? And why would the West employ the tactic on *themselves*? Like, if this is a nefarious scheme I would expect to see something more nefarious...
Why would oppressive elites even want a lower population?
It's much harder to have a totalitarian society when you know the chief on a first name basis.
It's much easier to oppress people when you can hide behind a thick layer of bureaucratic controls that you can justify on the basis of needing to provision a gigantic population.
I can think of reasons. Imagine you are the elite (or one group of them) and you all tend to believe you are the most sophisticated, educated, civilized, cultured, intelligent, superior, etc. If you are global/multi-national, race, language, nation may not matter much to you in most cases. Which populations you target are thus part of a design. And perhaps many elite families are generational and in positions of power--understanding how to play the world and its politics, how to play people against each other, how to adapt to unexpected movements among the masses and take them over (making them your own). They hold all the strings, all the controls.
Perhaps there is more than one elite group and also there is some change in the groups (some people like Oprah or JK Rowling for instance become rich and powerful despite having no access to the top class before that). There are conflicts of interest among all of the elite perhaps, disputes, fights, clashing values, etc. So just like how the U.S. and Russia (as two examples) play factions in the Middle East off each other, so those with power can play anyone off each other. If you win then perhaps you gain something you want over the other elites (you don't care about all the little people who died in the wars you waged).
The population is interesting because it's a problem. Humans are overpopulated and I think that some measures might eventually be taken regarding this. So if you are the elite type I mentioned before, perhaps you have a future vision of the world. You would like the population lower and to make the world in the image you like. One thing you could do is test certain populations to see what works. So if BC and feminism were some grand conspiracy, the West was the testing ground. The results are that the people willingly decrease their own population. You don't even have to kill anyone.
Anyway, I don't think it was a big conspiracy, unless as a potential experiment. I wouldn't be surprised if the elite powers are constantly running a lot of social experiments. This is assuming they are not "good," though not all of them are "evil" either (I know these are too simple terms) and some actually want to help people (some are altruistic). But like all people they all have their different groups and they don't all get along. They have agendas for the world that conflict with one another.
And there's so many tools of control that I am not sure the elite need to worry about anything. If the they carried out a population reduction, it can be made to look as though that's not what happened, and a few can set themselves up as society's "saviors." If they control all the information, no one can ever figure out what really happened (not with any proof) and so it is just like how conspiracy theories are now. Why specifically was MLK Jr. killed? Who knows...
Sorry to change the topic, but in the wake of the Schneiderman sex scandal I'd like to share a few observations.
One of Schneiderman's alleged victims chose not to come forward because she didn't want to hamper his work fighting the Trump administration. You will see a similar pattern of behaviour in many other scandals of late. Progressive women are unwilling to discuss predatory behaviour if doing so would reflect badly upon the wider social agenda that the left wishes to push. In many cases, the individuals at fault are known to be abusers within their social circles. Yet charges are not filed, because that would "enable racists" and "damage the cause". Hence the consistent media censorship of child sexual grooming by Muslim gangs in the UK, and rape of women by illegal immigrants in Germany and Sweden. These are not fashionable targets. Far better to attack "creepy nice guys" for making an inappropriate joke at work.
This is why I have no sympathy for #metoo. The women involved don't seem bothered by actual abuses of power. What they want is to control how you and I can express ourselves if we don't share their views. Hashtag feminism is just another arm of a wider agenda to destabilize relations between men and women.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 05-08-2018 at 11:50 PM.
Most women who self identify as feminists suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Feminists claim to be strong, independent and self confident, yet they perceive themselves to be victims who are systematically oppressed by the patriarchy. They also demand that men open doors for them, pay for them on dates, flatter all of their ideas and (through taxes) subsidize the birth control, abortions and welfare payments which make their slut lifestyle possible. Feminists will often claim to find nice, friendly, sensitive and kind men who are giving attractive, yet they despise men who are sexually submissive, indecisive and socially awkward. They rail against the mythical gender pay gap, yet they consider men who make less money than them to be losers.
LOL.
You see, the real problem is that deep down, feminists are quite childlike and submissive. They often seek out older men in positions of power for romance because they come from single parent homes and have an unmet need for a man to coddle them like a father (this is also why so many adult feminists try to look and behave like teenage girls). If a man is visibly emotional, blunt, improper and provocative, the feminist will worry that he is too immature to become her daddy and look after her, so she will panic and project her insecurities onto him.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 05-09-2018 at 12:22 AM.
I was never really much into feminism in spite of supporting social & political equality in full:
* because I'm not into political activism
* because I hate labels
* because the movement is often too politically correct
* because people think it's kind of lame for a guy to call himself a feminist (or they think you're just trying to sleep with some naive girls)
* and because quite a few feminists are straight up crazy [EDIT: this is not unique to feminism]
But ever since Trump's rise to power & the alt-right forces he's unleashed, I've decided to call myself a feminist out of spite for these people. Feminists are also unambiguously left-wing for the most part; I would force boys to wear dresses & teach myself to lactate if it meant bank regulation & free post-secondary.
Last edited by xerx; 05-10-2018 at 06:27 AM.
yes; and the real agenda behind conservative women & men defending sexual predators like Bill O'reilly is that they want his mangy dick.
Last edited by xerx; 05-15-2018 at 08:08 PM. Reason: qualified `bill oreilly dick` with appropriate adjective
I don't agree that all feminists are submissive and want a daddy. Seriously? This is kind of ridiculous. Pretty much any statement that reads all <insert group of people> are X way is false. Why bother with the bad logic?
I really do wonder where the threat feeling comes from, because its not native to me. I dont look down on men I just wonder what motivates that feeling to keep a woman in a spot, wheredoes that come from and why I wonder when I see it which is so rare in my world beyond the internet, its just so integrated in this world.
Hmm, perhaps the threat is that women make men fall for them, and so men lose their reason. Like Helene of Troy, who's the main responsible for Troy's war, and like Eve, who's guilty of our misery.
I can't tell if this is serious or not. But my feeling about this is that when people are angered because something didn't go well for them they look for someone or something to blame, something to attach that anger to. I find with myself that the last target of my anger in these cases is myself (though this isn't to say that I am not often the first and last target of my anger), and that's the final stage before letting go of that anger by accepting whatever it is about *myself* that led to what has hurt or angered me. In this sense it's no longer about who or what is at fault, but about how this anger is MY anger and therefore the only one responsible for it in my internal world is me, and usually it is poisoning my internal world in some sense, sometimes becoming hate, and it's in my best interest to deal with it in a way that doesn't hurt myself or others. Naturally, no one is perfect and we do hit others with our anger, and I still don't know how to apply anger constructively (see 9 in tritype).
So I think what happens when the power in a society rests with males > females and there is a clear social patriarchy, that when matters of love go badly, or even other matters, men may target women or a woman in particular with their anger. So it seems that often times it can go one of two ways (though of course I'm sure there are more ways) in that a man will revere "his woman" because he finds her devotion and person admirable according to the ideal of the feminine in his culture (and because she has not shunned him, rejected him, or decided she wants to leave) and he may even consider himself her "slave" in his own devotion; or a man will resent and hate "his woman" and womankind as deceivers, spiritually lacking, unworthy of the ideal of the feminine in their culture, and so on. If she wishes to leave him or falls out of love with him, his suffering is considered *her* fault. She made him fall for her, she led him on, she betrayed him, she ripped him away from his sense of reason and now he is lost in a realm of emotion and desire which she denies him any relief of. And so his love turns to hate and she must be punished.
And ironically, even though he holds more power than she does, he believes she holds all the power because he sees his reactions to her as her fault and takes no responsibility for his own feelings. If in his culture men are encouraged to be tough and not show vulnerability, then he may have a low level of emotional intelligence and so he doesn't see that his lack of skill in this is due to a lacking *he* has rather than being the fault of women. And it's not necessarily his fault that he has poor emotional management skills when it comes to his own emotions, because he likely wasn't taught such skills if men are not supposed to be "emotional" in this way and "emotion" is considered in the realm of the feminine. And women themselves in such a culture may only confirm this because they are raised to embrace emotion even perhaps over reason.
These kinds of resentments towards someone romantically can be experienced by anyone regardless of their biological sex. Many break-ups are nasty and both parties resent and blame the other. But it's also true that no one makes us fall for them, no one makes us lose our reason, no one forces us to the realm of emotion and desire and strands us there. And as long as society is equal between the sexes, no one sex can truly be labeled as the source of the other's misery in any way that matters on the social level.
A general principle operating I think is that when one has more social power than another and one is overcome with anger, one tends to hit those with less power, because one can. This kind of bullying down the social hierarchy is not just a human thing, but can be seen in some other complex social animals as well, primates and apes included.
And the story of Adam and Eve is from a patriarchal culture, and this shows throughout the Bible.
Last edited by marooned; 05-18-2018 at 04:18 PM.
There's even the story of how Achilles refused to fight when they stole his mistress Briseide (and they killed his "friend" Patroclo), so the entire Ilyad is the history of Achille's holding a grudge for he's missing his lover(s).
It's not meant to be funny or serious, it's just the myths that we have inherited, they're said to contain more than what is merely depicted. As you "have to believe" that Eve is the reason why we were kicked out of Eden, I'm not making that up, it's how history has been portrayed to us for 3 millennia... I agree it's in favour of one part only, over the other.
I recently had this debate with someone and I really don't think that it's merely an interpretation that it's Eve's fault. Eve was created out of a piece of Adam and was created so that he would not be lonely. The Bible overall has women answering to men and men answering to God. The argument can be made that Adam partook of the fruit as well, but he arguably wouldn't have done so had Eve not handed it to him, and she had already been tempted independently (it wasn't a joint decision in that sense). I believe that the interpretation that she was the "weak one" is in context. Some church leaders will argue that it doesn't matter who ate the fruit first and both are equally guilty and I have no objection to that as a sort of "reform" of the narrative. But the original narrative is that the snake tempts Eve who tempts Adam, and this is the reason why woman must obey man who obeys God. Woman cannot access the divine except through man, and all the leaders and prophets are male. So the Bible definitely places woman in the subservient position overall and this story seems to be very much at the root of it. It even reads to me that God created further inequality between male and female as a result of Eve being the instigator.
Yes Eve is the temptress by tradition, and "the wife of Adam", the missing rib, the bearer of heirs, but she's never the heroin. There are almost no stories about heroic goddesses as well, it was Jupiter, Marduk, Ea, Atun... they were the original male gods, the creators, not females, and they usually had to kill a dragon (a big serpent), that had feminine names... one wonders!
I don't know the psychological reason behind this, I think it's more a socio/political sort of control, if you let people hear the same story enough times, then they'll start believing in it. They say it was agriculture that changed the social roles for good, before of that we probably worshipped mother goddesses that resembled the sun )
? I don't want to get into the entire biblical debate, but I think you're forgetting about Deborah, who was both a prophetess and judge, Miriam (Moses and Aaron's sister) also was referred to as a prophetess and one of the leaders bringing the people out of Egypt, Huldah yet another, and several others in the Old Testament alone.
I agree that Bill O'Reilly abused women and should have been fired from Fox, but that's hardly the point here.
Feminists believe that "offensive" speech is a form of violence. They refuse to recognise that there is a big difference between men touching women inappropriately, and men making sexualised comments about women. Every guy has made a few lame pickup attempts before, and many, myself included, just like to talk about sex in a lewd manner. It is normal for a group of men to make comments like "damn she's got a nice rack", "she'd fuck me like an animal" etc about members of the opposite sex. A woman who thinks this means "he's going to rape me" needs to spend some more time around men. Period.
Now if you still can't see how purging men left and right for the above is unjust and cruel, just flip the sexes. Imagine the uproar there would be if a woman aggressively hit on a male colleague, he called her a creep, complained to HR and she lost her job because of it, or even worse, she was accused of sexual assault and forced to defend herself in court. Imagine the stress. If you would feel angry for her, then you should support the many men who are in this situation right now. Do not be complacent. This might happen to you one day.
You must understand that the #MeToo movement's true purpose is not to fight sexual abuse of women. It completely ignores the systemic rape by Muslim immigrants of underage girls in the U.K. and Sweden, except to shame their victims for being racist. Instead, their latest righteous causes are campaigns to ban sex robots and regulate pornography. Because of course, men shouldn't have the right to any alternative ways to get our sexual needs met. Modern feminists are just prudish women who withhold sex as a means of control.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 05-19-2018 at 01:36 AM.
What the fuck are you talking about?! #MeToo forced many powerful sexual harassers to resign or get fired, including your man Schneiderman. A much less stupid criticism of #MeToo is that it may be going too far and turning into a witch hunt. "Ignoring the sexual abuse of women" is what happens when you elect a sexual abuser to the presidency of the United States.
Last edited by xerx; 05-19-2018 at 01:43 AM.
I'm not forgetting. I was ignorant.
I have no connections to Schneiderman. It is malicious for you to imply that he and I are similar, let alone working together.
If you bothered to read my posts, you'd see that one of my criticisms of #MeToo is that it has destroyed a (straight) man's ability to express his sexuality through art. I work in the entertainment industry, and the ramifications are huge for music, theatre, comedy, films and TV shows.
The movement is much too focused on how people talk. Like I said above, this is because feminists (and the left in general) have come to view speech they dislike as a form of violence, and therefore worthy of censorship.
What ramifications..? Artists aren't being forced to change anything for anyone; if they're too supine or cowardly to challenge widespread beliefs they dislike, that's a moral failing on their part. They're certainly under no obligation to capitulate to your own moral sentiments.
Secondly, you're a white nationalist who wants to censor the existence of black people from your country. Not calling that a form of political correctness would be a straight-up lie. If you're sincere about challenging censorship instead of being a sanctimonious troll, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye.
i'll save you from guessing and tell you it's this one
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
@xerx
You like most leftists are an unprincipled coward.
Let me reiterate the obvious: I am not trying to defend men who force women against their will. Rape is always wrong. Yet there are many examples of rape on a mass scale which the #MeToo movement has chosen to ignore. Why? Because the perpetrators were not white, straight, male, and socially awkward. Feminists won't touch anything that might threaten the wider progressive agenda and therefore threaten their position in elite social circles. They are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
By all means continue to wallow in your comfortable delusions. I have nothing further to say to you.
@niffer
You disappoint me. I expect a little more class from an SLE.
o_q *adjusts monocle*
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
I think it's true that a shift is happening in the entertainment industry, probably more than one shift (and some for good as well as bad). There is increasing concern about what kind of messages stories are sending and thus need to make sure they're all sending the "right" messages. I find this troublesome in that my fantasy world is very removed from reality and I don't want any restrictions on stories. I prefer to examine stories myself and come to my own conclusions. I don't want Hollywood to turn into the thought police where every movie and show is about influencing viewers to be whatever the "right" way is. It also makes discussing fiction online annoying because the conversations are often more about sociopolitical stuff than the characters within their world and context. And to try to clarify, I will think about sociopolitical stuff as well with stories, but it's not in this way in which it's the ONLY thing I focus on or feel it needs to constantly dominate conversations.
The moral backing for this is that the messages people pick up in media do influence them. But from my point of view if media is diverse enough, it should cancel out problems affecting certain groups--like women and POC. There need to be more characters played by POC and all types of characters. Female characters need to not simply all be tough kick ass women but cover a diverse range of character types.
And beyond this, why are so many people not critical thinkers? Why do some just blindly follow messaging? If that's happening, it seems it's a failure in education.
The more I feel though that movies are just shoving deliberate messaging down my throat, the less I like watching them, and the more I seem to be interested in things that send the worst messaging ever out of some strange defiance. I'm highly resistant to anything that tries to control my mind because that is MY space and world. And although I don't really write fiction, if I did it would be an expression of my inner world and yes it would have violence and all sorts of things kind of like how my dreams aren't about moral messaging, but reflect archetypes within myself. When one writes from the unconscious they pull up all sorts of things, some of which are disturbing. And I like to use fiction to examine what is lurking back there.
And I don't understand why there is this focus on sterilizing media of all potentially negative messaging instead of providing tools so that people aren't so easily influenced by everything in media. Using media to further and deliberately brainwash people doesn't seem like the answer to me. There really isn't such thing as brainwashing for good in my view. Brainwashing is the enemy of independent thinking.
Last edited by marooned; 05-19-2018 at 01:25 PM.
A coward is someone who wants a safe space to protect him from accidental interaction with Muslim people.
That's complete bullshit.Let me reiterate the obvious: I am not trying to defend men who force women against their will. Rape is always wrong. Yet there are many examples of rape on a mass scale which the #MeToo movement has chosen to ignore. Why? Because the perpetrators were not white, straight, male, and socially awkward. Feminists won't touch anything that might threaten the wider progressive agenda and therefore threaten their position in elite social circles. They are morally and spiritually bankrupt.
By all means continue to wallow in your comfortable delusions. I have nothing further to say to you.
#MeToo
من_هم_همینطور# (Farsi)
أنا_كمان# (Arabic)
There are many feminists who forcefully criticise third-world mistreatment of women. When the refugee crisis happened, a few countries offered workshops to migrant men on how to follow the Western protocol vis-à-vis the treatment of women, which isn't exactly "politically correct" in the traditional sense. I agree with the move and think it's entirely appropriate for migrants to be expected to assimilate.
There are also many on the left who want to paint a rosy picture (or just don't want to rock the boat); I don't find their arguments compelling, but the existence of wide gulfs in opinion happens in virtually every loosely-knit movement. Characterising only one wing as Feminism is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
Criticism of other societies abounds. What you don't like is that it isn't wrapped in jingoistic rhetoric about how Western civilisation is inherently superior.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote